Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 15:38:16 GMT -5
I guess we can just set people in their fifties getting laid off and/or needing a job on an ice floe and set them adrift. The fact that most of us will live thirty years and maybe more beyond that...meh. There are younger folks.
I can see mandatory retirement for the FBI at a given age, at least for certain positions. I can certainly see it for positions that require a degree of physical fitness (though that said, I'd rather their fitness be tested). I don't see it for judges and desk jobs, and I don't give a rat's ass about whether my state does it.
I don't think Kennedy was losing it mentally, though I certainly have my issues with him.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 8, 2018 18:40:57 GMT -5
I guess we can just set people in their fifties getting laid off and/or needing a job on an ice floe and set them adrift. The fact that most of us will live thirty years and maybe more beyond that...meh. There are younger folks. Yes, that's exactly what I said. One might even call my proposal a Holocaust in the making, at the very least...
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 8, 2018 18:59:01 GMT -5
I guess we can just set people in their fifties getting laid off and/or needing a job on an ice floe and set them adrift. The fact that most of us will live thirty years and maybe more beyond that...meh. There are younger folks. Yes, that's exactly what I said. One might even call my proposal a Holocaust in the making, at the very least... A Modest Proposal, indeed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 19:36:45 GMT -5
It was called sarcasm. Hyperbole, even.
Age discrimination is a thing, and I've known job seekers facing it, which is why I reacted that way. They get passed over or laid off in favor of less qualified but younger candidates. Ageism bugs me.
And I don't think "but some people get senile/infirm!" is an adequate reason. I've seen some good partners still working at firms into their 80s. Those who aren't up to snuff (and don't love it) don't tend to hang on that long. If they were incapable and contributing nothing (or messing things up), they'd be pushed out. It's a brain job, a desk job, not a brute physical strength job.
There is, by the way, a very big difference between a state-level judge and a Supreme Court justice, which I think many non-lawyers might not realize State court judges (in New York, for sure) tend to have tremendous case loads that they are pushing through every day. Many are pretty damn overburdened and understaffed. SCOTUS justices have fewer cases, and their excellent clerks do the grunt work (and more). Being a state court judge is way more grueling.
If a Supreme Court judge is mentally infirm or physically incapable of doing the work, we remove them. More likely, they'll remove themselves. I don't see the point in forcing them to step down at 75, regardless of when they got onto the bench. I'd like to see justices appointed to our highest court who have a lifetime of achievement already rather than giving an incentive to hire the youngest judges possible. I mean, if they are awesome and happen to be 40 with a great track record, well, okay. But I don't like the idea of presidents weighing up a 60 year old candidate who is just tremendous and saying, "nah, he'd only be there for 15 years--let's go for the young dude so we have him for 35."
I also think that if justices had the 18 year term, there would be less incentive for Senators to act like assholes and block good candidates just because they were nominated by the opposition party. Each party/president would get its chance. Restore the 60 vote threshold, and we might once again have presidents aiming to present reasonably moderate, or at least not terribly partisan, justices, that the reasonable people in each party could live with.
All I can say is I think that right now, things are badly broken. Both Garland and Gorsuch, IMO, should have been shoo-ins. Garland didn't get a hearing; Gorsuch got a harder time than I think he on his own merits deserved (though I FULLY grok why, and honestly don't quarrel with it, after Garland). I'd like to go back to a world where by and large senators have an incentive to say "yeah, he/she has a great record, is brilliant, and there's no reasonable reason to block them" when in fact that is the case. That's where we were once...
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 8, 2018 21:54:11 GMT -5
It was called sarcasm. Hyperbole, even. Age discrimination is a thing, and I've known job seekers facing it, which is why I reacted that way. They get passed over or laid off in favor of less qualified but younger candidates. Ageism bugs me. And I don't think "but some people get senile/infirm!" is an adequate reason. I've seen some good partners still working at firms into their 80s. Those who aren't up to snuff (and don't love it) don't tend to hang on that long. If they were incapable and contributing nothing (or messing things up), they'd be pushed out. It's a brain job, a desk job, not a brute physical strength job. There is, by the way, a very big difference between a state-level judge and a Supreme Court justice, which I think many non-lawyers might not realize State court judges (in New York, for sure) tend to have tremendous case loads that they are pushing through every day. Many are pretty damn overburdened and understaffed. SCOTUS justices have fewer cases, and their excellent clerks do the grunt work (and more). Being a state court judge is way more grueling. If a Supreme Court judge is mentally infirm or physically incapable of doing the work, we remove them. More likely, they'll remove themselves. I don't see the point in forcing them to step down at 75, regardless of when they got onto the bench. I'd like to see justices appointed to our highest court who have a lifetime of achievement already rather than giving an incentive to hire the youngest judges possible. I mean, if they are awesome and happen to be 40 with a great track record, well, okay. But I don't like the idea of presidents weighing up a 60 year old candidate who is just tremendous and saying, "nah, he'd only be there for 15 years--let's go for the young dude so we have him for 35." I also think that if justices had the 18 year term, there would be less incentive for Senators to act like assholes and block good candidates just because they were nominated by the opposition party. Each party/president would get its chance. Restore the 60 vote threshold, and we might once again have presidents aiming to present reasonably moderate, or at least not terribly partisan, justices, that the reasonable people in each party could live with. All I can say is I think that right now, things are badly broken. Both Garland and Gorsuch, IMO, should have been shoo-ins. Garland didn't get a hearing; Gorsuch got a harder time than I think he on his own merits deserved (though I FULLY grok why, and honestly don't quarrel with it, after Garland). I'd like to go back to a world where by and large senators have an incentive to say "yeah, he/she has a great record, is brilliant, and there's no reasonable reason to block them" when in fact that is the case. That's where we were once... Yeah, but we haven't been there for a very long time. It's worse now than it ever was because ppl get used to it, it becomes more acceptable, and then people push the line.
I'd imagine that they'll be ppl lining up to donate their own ribs to keep RBG on the bench.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 9, 2018 9:34:49 GMT -5
It was called sarcasm. Hyperbole, even. Poorly done, since I made it clear that I was talking about a severely limited group. Yes, age discrimination is a thing. Well again, I specifically made this about the Federal Government, not the private sector. The mandatory retirements apply to State Supreme Courts, as well. But regardless, mandatory retirements ages aren't in place because judges are overburdened and understaffed. Those are problems that need to be addressed all on their own. Look, I understand the argument against mandatory retirement. And I offered this idea up in good faith. Your freaking out over it, suggesting that I want to send everyone over 50 out to sea, was needlessly obnoxious, imo. Is that where we are, now? And I would point out that the scenario you're worried about is already a possibility. Indeed, it's always been that way. My problem with something like an 18 year term is that I think it would fall apart over time and it would make the Court more political as a matter of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2018 9:37:30 GMT -5
FfS, it was a snide joke. The one freaking out is you.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 9, 2018 18:48:32 GMT -5
Wait, I've got 3 years until I'm 50. Can I be sent out to sea?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2018 19:27:31 GMT -5
Wait, I've got 3 years until I'm 50. Can I be sent out to sea? Of course. I'll even throw in a flotation device so you have a sporting chance.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 9, 2018 21:21:03 GMT -5
pfft. I am a flotation device.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Dec 21, 2018 12:40:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Sept 18, 2020 19:22:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 18, 2020 19:26:59 GMT -5
Yeah, I can't see how the Dems would possibly allow any nomination to get a vote prior to the election. And any Repubs in Congress who whine about that can go foad.
ETA: Oh, and godspeed Ruth. You left one helluva legacy...
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Sept 18, 2020 20:07:45 GMT -5
I'm not sure, but I don't think Democrats can stop it since Reid and McConnell eliminated filibuster and went to simple majority for confirmation.
I think the question is do Republicans want to exchange any chance of taking the House (already a long shot) and possibly Senate for another SC judge.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Sept 18, 2020 21:06:21 GMT -5
I'm not sure, but I don't think Democrats can stop it since Reid and McConnell eliminated filibuster and went to simple majority for confirmation. Yeah, that's what I thought, too. They can certainly argue hypocrisy given McConnell's position on Merrick Garland, but that's obviously not the same as preventing a vote. ETA: I suppose there's a possibility, though, of some Repubs joining w/ the Dems on this. Maybe Collins and Murkowski? Or Romney?
|
|